benchmark.pl measures the speed differences between a hash, Tree::Ternary,
and Tree::Ternary_XS.

The results below are from my developement system, it shows Tree::Ternary_XS
being faster from between 50 and 260 times faster.

Leon Brocard, leon@astray.com, 31/4/2000

** insert **
Benchmark: running Hash, Ternary, Ternary_XS, each for at least 20 CPU seconds...
      Hash: 26 wallclock secs (25.71 usr +  0.01 sys = 25.72 CPU) @  1.05/s (n=27)
   Ternary: 30 wallclock secs (28.92 usr +  0.44 sys = 29.36 CPU) @  0.03/s (n=1)
            (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Ternary_XS: 24 wallclock secs (24.32 usr +  0.00 sys = 24.32 CPU) @  1.48/s (n=36)

** search **
Benchmark: running Hash, Ternary, Ternary_XS, each for at least 20 CPU seconds...
      Hash: 26 wallclock secs (25.98 usr +  0.01 sys = 25.99 CPU) @  1.77/s (n=46)
   Ternary: 46 wallclock secs (46.10 usr +  0.00 sys = 46.10 CPU) @  0.07/s (n=3)
            (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Ternary_XS: 22 wallclock secs (22.34 usr +  0.00 sys = 22.34 CPU) @  3.80/s (n=85)

** pmsearch **
Benchmark: running Ternary, Ternary_XS, each for at least 20 CPU seconds...
   Ternary: 173 wallclock secs (171.28 usr +  0.02 sys = 171.30 CPU) @  0.01/s (n=1)
            (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Ternary_XS: 27 wallclock secs (26.04 usr +  0.02 sys = 26.06 CPU) @  1.23/s (n=32)

** nearsearch **
Benchmark: running Ternary, Ternary_XS, each for at least 20 CPU seconds...
   Ternary: 35 wallclock secs (34.05 usr +  0.01 sys = 34.06 CPU) @  0.32/s (n=11)
Ternary_XS: 20 wallclock secs (20.07 usr +  0.03 sys = 20.10 CPU) @ 83.73/s (n=1683)